Lawmakers no longer welcome in bars and restaurants hurt by state smoking policy

Small bar owners angered over
losing their butts to the statewide indoor smoking ban plan to give lawmakers
the boot.

A newly formed group, Protect
Private Property Rights in Michigan (PPPRM), has organized an effort to ban
lawmakers from their establishments in protest against Michigan's smoking ban.
This lawmaker ban is scheduled to start Sept. 1. PPPRM, which claims to have a
membership of about 500 businesses, argues that the smoking ban has been disastrous
for Michigan's small bar owners and their employees.

“We're not smoking advocates or
advocates for tobacco use,” PPPRM Executive Director Stephen Mace said. “We 're
just people who believe in private property rights and are trying to speak out
against this law that's hurting us and our employees. It has already put some
of us out of business.”

According to Mace, participating
bars are being provided with photos of local lawmakers so they can identify
them if they enter their establishments. However, the governor, lieutenant governor, House speaker and Senate majority leader will be exempt from the ban.

“We'll let the top officials in to
symbolize how the ban hurts the little guys but not big guys,” Mace explained.
“That would be consistent with smoking ban. We're trying to keep a sense of
humor even though things are looking pretty grim. I think you'll see a lot of
creative approaches as this goes forward.”

Capitol Confidential asked Mace if he considers those negatively affected by the
smoking to be victims.

StayEngaged

Receive our weekly emails!

email address

“Absolutely,” Mace said. “Actually
the term ‘smoking ban victims’ was coined in Ohio about the ban down there. But
at least in Ohio the ban was done through a vote of the people. Here in
Michigan they just did it to us.”

“And understand this: The very
first people to become victims of the ban were the employees,” Mace continued.
“They're the ones who were the first to lose jobs. Then some of the businesses
themselves were forced to close their doors. Those on the other side of this
issue try to say it's just the overall bad economy. That's just not so.”

The idea of small bars denying
entry to lawmakers isn't designed to force an end to the smoking ban by
withholding beer and liquor from state representatives and senators. It's primarily aimed at calling attention to the
plight of the small businesses that have been injured, some destroyed, due to
the smoking ban.

“We are the little guys,” Mace
said. “We're not big enough to pay lobbyists and have parking spaces up by the
Capitol. Many of us can't afford to stay in an association. When money starts
getting this short, you just can't spend it that way. Businesses like ours used
to give donations to local events and for local sports. We can't even afford to
do that anymore.”

PPPRM claims that the smoking ban has
already cost the state more than $200 million in lost revenue. That figure
could go up. According to Mace, the group has barely started the task of
compiling data on the overall impact of the law.

He cited recent testimony by
Michigan Lottery Commissioner Scott Bowen on June 8 that the smoking ban has
cut into lottery revenues from Club Keno, which is played in bars and
restaurants throughout the state.

In the debate that led up to the
December 2009 passage of the smoking ban, proponents of the ban claimed it
wouldn't hurt businesses. A widely referred-to study at the time (paid for by
smoking ban proponents) supposedly showed that the ban wouldn't cause economic
damage.

In spite of these claims, as many
had expected, after the ban went into effect negative impacts were soon to
follow. Regular customers who were smokers stopped showing up, resulting in the
loss of profits or the loss of thin plus-side margins that had been keeping the
bars from going under. Employee layoffs and actual business closings followed.

“I've learned a lot in recent months,”
Mace said. “For one thing, I've learned that there is evidence that national
anti-smoking groups have less to do with fighting cancer, and more to do with
making money.”

Mace references a recent paper
calling to question the motives of the American Cancer Society. The paper was
authored by Samuel S. Epstein M.D., chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition
and professor emeritus at the Illinois University of Public Health.

In mid-September the Republicans
are holding a policy conference on Mackinac Island. Typically the bars on the
“Island” will be busy and bulging with lawmakers. But Mace said he did not
believe the establishments on Mackinac Island would be participating in the
lawmaker ban.

“We have some people up there who
will be sympathetic to our position,” Mace said. “But when you're talking about
Mackinac Island, you're talking about the tourist industry. I'd be surprised if
any of those bars participated in our ban. They only have about five months out
of every year to do business. They really aren't the kinds of businesses that
are in our group.”

However, Mace said the comparison
with Mackinac Island businesses does illustrate one of the points his group is
trying to make.

“You just can't say that all bars
and restaurants are the same,” Mace said. “I think part of what happened in
Lansing was the larger quick-in and quick-out restaurants ended up being
represented more than businesses like ours. We tend to have more regular
customers who typically come in and stay longer and come back the next day.”

In Lansing the Michigan Restaurant
Association (MRA) and the Michigan Licensed beverage Association (MLBA) both
opposed the ban. However their position was that, whatever the legislature did,
it should not try to sort out (or segregate) certain types of bars and
restaurants from others. If there was going to be a smoking ban, it would have
to affect all the establishments in the same way.

“We were opposed to any attempt to
try to segregate the industry,” Lance Binoniemi, MLBA executive director, told Capitol
Confidential. “You can't just sit down and say this restaurant or bar
should be included, but this other one shouldn't. We were also opposed to
excluding the casinos.”

At the time, many Lansing insiders
believed the Detroit casino issue would prevent the smoking ban from passing.
Native American casinos aren't under Michigan jurisdiction, and the state can't
ban smoking in those establishments. With Detroit casinos competing with the
Native American casinos, it was believed Detroit lawmakers would help block a
smoking ban. But the hopes of smoking ban opponents were dashed when smoking
ban proponents finally agreed to exempt the Detroit casinos. When that happened,
the votes materialized and the legislation passed.

Few, if any, of the bars
associated with the PPPRM are members of the MRA. However, it’s likely some MLBA
member businesses are in the new group. What's more, Mace contends that more
than just the “about 500” member bars are going to participate in the lawmaker
ban.

Binoniemi said Tuesday that his
group is not supporting the lawmaker ban, although it is sympathetic with the
small bar owners.

“Our approach is different,”
Binoniemi said. “We'd recommend that bar
owners educate their representatives and senators about how they're suffering
under the ban. They need to tell them about how this is hurting them and their
employees.”

Other states with smoking bans in
place are considering legislation to modify their bans. Nevada has gone the
furthest. It ended its ban as it applied to businesses that only sell alcoholic
beverages, and has carved out exceptions for other businesses.

In Michigan, a handful of
lawmakers have either introduced or talked about introducing legislation
to modify Michigan's ban. The most aggressive of these would be a measure to
create a smoking-on-premises permit. Rep. Ed McBroom (R-Vulcan) is expected to
introduce the legislation soon.

“We're supporting that
legislation,” Binoniemi said. “It would
be similar to a liquor license approach.”

Capitol Confidential suggested the McBroom bill might stand a chance of passing
in the House, but probably not in the Senate.

“At least it could get the
conversations started,” Binoniemi said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Doug Geiss
(D-Taylor) and Rep. Tim Melton (D-Auburn Hills) have introduced legislation
that would modify the smoking ban in Michigan. The Geiss bill is HB 4127 and
the Melton Bill is HB 4447.

The Detroit Free Press has quoted Geiss saying the legislature should “revisit”
the smoking ban.

Reportedly Geiss said: "Let's
try to right this wrong and make it work for all Michigan."

The Republican Party fully controls most states and at the national level has captured the House, Senate and presidency. By many measures, the party has more power than it has had in many decades. But will that control last? And, more importantly, what policy priorities are coming about from these political victories?

RelatedSites

Would you like to see more information like this? Learn how you can help the Mackinac Center provide incisive, accurate and timely analysis of critical policy issues.